Interlanguage and the ‘natural’ route of developme.ppt

3 Interlanguage and the ‘natural’ route of development I. A mentalist theory of language learning The obvious inadequacies of behaviourist explanations of L2 acquisition led researches to look towards an alternative theoretical framework. From a preoccupation with the role of ‘nurture’ (i.e. how external factors shape learning), researchers switched their attention to ‘nature’ (i.e. how the internal factors shape learning). Therefore, this new theoretical framework was mentalist/nativist in orientation. Chomsky (1959) attached importance to the active contribution of the child and played down imitation and reinforcement. Universal Grammar was claimed to be the source of the child’s knowledge of his L1. This view of FLA was represented in the form of a model: primary linguistic data (input) → AD (including UG) → G (a specific grammar) Lenneberg (1967) stressed the biological prerequisites of language. He claimed that only homo sapiens was capable of learning language. II. Interlanguage The term ‘interlanguage’ was coined by the American linguist Larry Selinker (1972). It is recognized that L2 learners construct a linguistic system that draws partially on the learner’s L1 but is different from it and also from the target language. A learner’s interlanguage is, therefore, a unique linguistic system. The concept of interlanguage involves the following premises about L2 acquisition: 1. The learner constructs a system of abstract linguist rules which underlies comprehension and production of the L2. This system of rules is viewed as a ‘mental grammar’ and is referred to as an ‘interlanguage’. 2. The learner’s grammar is permeable. That is, the grammar is open to influence from the outside (i.e. through the input). It is also influenced from the inside. For example, omission, overgeneralization, and transfer errors provide evidence of internal processing. 3. The learner’s